[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL vs. OSL

On 2004-04-22 01:26:20 +0100 Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@its.monash.edu.au> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 10:20:55AM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
AFAI can see elfutils is doubly licenced under GPL and/or OSL:
Could someone shed some light on the license issues related to bug

elfutils went after http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=221761

I am rather irritated by the incomplete quoting of elfutils sources which trimmed key facts like:

* Wed Jan  7 2004 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> 0.91-1
- include only libelf under GPL plus wrapper scripts

or the copyright headers in the source files everywhere proclaiming that they are OSL-covered files. If you read through the %if %{gpl} sections of the spec in the upstream sources, I think you may find that you can build libelf to use binutils. I hope that's some use to you.

However, much of elfutils is still OSL and still non-free.

MJR/slef     My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Reply to: